3 ms·

http://thedailywtf.com/articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS http://thedailywtf.com/articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS

• mcknz 10y ago
  beat me to it... http://thedailywtf.com/articles/MUMPS-Madness http://thedailywtf.com/articles/MUMPS-Madness http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Revenge-of-MUMPS-Madness http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Revenge-of-MUMPS-Madness!
  • clock_tower 10y ago
    I, too, have googled MUMPS.
    • mcknz 10y ago
      I read the DailyWTF article on MUMPS when it was originally posted, so that prompted me to go look for it.
      • clock_tower 10y ago
        My comment was aimed more at tsomctl and moomin than at you, to be honest. Say "MUMPS" and people will fall over themselves to cite The Daily WTF, as if it were all there was to be said on the matter.
        • tsomctl 10y ago
          I, too, read the Daily WTF when that article first came out (in middle school! Time flies.) Although, to be honest, it was a lot funnier then than it is now.
        • mcknz 10y ago
          got it -- didn't realize it was such a widely shared experience...
• nwhatt 10y ago
  A more coherent response from someone who actually uses MUMPS: https://robtweed.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/a-case-of-the-mumps/ https://robtweed.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/a-case-of-the-mump...
  • Gravityloss 10y ago
    But giving historical reasons for today's illegible syntax doesn't make today's illegible syntax legible? Maybe the article would be better if he showed this more beautiful way of writing MUMPS?